A COMMENTARY ON ECCLESIASTES
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes │
│ │
│ The original text displayed the Authorized Version of │
│ Scripture on the left page and the author’s paraphrase on │
│ the facing right page. For the electronic formats, these │
│ two versions for each verse have been placed in two columns │
│ followed immediately by the corresponding commentary. │
│ │
│ Punctuation has been standardized. │
│ │
│ Most of the non-common abbreviations used to save space in │
│ printing have been expanded to the non-abbreviated form for │
│ easier reading. │
│ │
│ The text may show quotations within quotations, all set │
│ off by similar quote marks. The inner quotations have been │
│ changed to alternate quote marks for improved readability. │
│ │
│ Characters in small caps have been replaced by all caps. │
│ │
│ Non-printable symbols have been presented in square brackets │
│ with a description [Leo astrological sign] │
│ │
│ Non-printable characteristics have been given the following │
│ Italic text: --> _text_ │
│ emphasized text within │
│ italics --> |text| │
│ bold text: --> =text=. │
│ │
│ This book was written in a period when many words had │
│ not become standardized in their spelling. Words may have │
│ multiple spelling variations or inconsistent hyphenation in │
│ the text. These have been left unchanged unless indicated │
│ with a Transcriber’s Note. │
│ │
│ Index references have not been checked for accuracy. │
│ │
│ The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has │
│ been added to an illustration. This may be needed if there │
│ is no caption or if the caption does not describe the image │
│ adequately. │
│ │
│ Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript │
│ number and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
│ │
│ Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the │
│ text or to provide additional information for the modern │
│ reader. These notes are identified by ♦♠♥♣ symbols in the │
│ text and are shown immediately below the paragraph in which │
│ they appear. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
A COMMENTARY
ON
ECCLESIASTES
RIVINGTONS
London _Waterloo Place_
Oxford _High Street_
Cambridge _Trinity Street_
A COMMENTARY
ON
ECCLESIASTES
BY THE REV.
THOMAS PELHAM DALE, M.A.
LATE FELLOW OF SIDNEY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE,
AND RECTOR OF ST. VEDAST WITH ST. MICHAEL LE QUERNE, LONDON.
דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים וְחִידֹתָם׃ יִרְאַת יְהוָה♦ רֵאשִׁית דָּעַת
♦ “יְחוָֹה” replaced with “יְהוָה”
RIVINGTONS
London, Oxford, and Cambridge
1873
TO
JOHN HALL GLADSTONE, ESQ. PH. D. F.R.S.
THROUGH WHOSE LIBERALITY IT SEES THE LIGHT,
IS THIS WORK AFFECTIONATELY DEDICATED BY
The Author.
PREFACE.
THE following Commentary differs from many of its predecessors in the
greater weight given to the interpretation of the LXX., and the closer
investigation of their peculiar renderings. In many cases these strange
renderings on the part of the LXX. are dismissed by commentators as
simply errors. But this is not consistent with what true criticism
ought to do. The LXX. is not only the oldest translation we have,
but also the only one made when Hebrew was yet a living language.
Its peculiar renderings then deserve our most serious attention. The
investigation of them will fully reward the inquirer. This, then,
is the cause of the special line of interpretation adopted in this
Commentary.
With regard to the Book of Ecclesiastes itself, the writer must confess
himself _homo unius libri_; for some years past all his Hebrew and
Greek studies have been devoted to the investigation of the meaning
of this one book in the Sacred Canon, and all his conclusions must
be taken with the reservation that they apply, directly, to this one
book alone. Such a concentration of effort may be expected to produce
results which might not be arrived at by a far wider and more extensive
research, just as a few rays of sunlight concentrated by a small lens
will burn where the sun himself will only warm.
Nevertheless, this book does not profess to be anything in the nature
of a new discovery. Sense is attempted to be made of difficult passages
by what may be called a microscopic attention to the grammar of the
writer, and a minute and careful analysis of every form and expression
he uses. The test of the correctness of the meaning thus found is
displayed in the way in which it falls into place in the context, and
squares with its tenor. But nothing novel in the way of Hebrew grammar
is urged, or anything which may not be found in ordinary commentaries,
except, perhaps, it be the fact of the difference of signification
between the contracted and full relative pronoun――a usage which is
peculiar to the Book of Ecclesiastes. This has hitherto been dismissed
by other commentators as evidence of late composition, without giving
it the notice it merited.
Many points of interest are started in these pages, which would well
repay a more careful investigation than I have either leisure or
learning to follow out. They are only presented so far as necessary
to illustrate and clear up difficulties in the interpretation of that
marvellous book which is the subject of this Commentary. If I have
succeeded, the Church will be benefited; if I have altogether failed,
my book will only add a few pages more to the vast literature which
this, the scientific treatise of the Divine Word, has elicited.
LONDON, _Oct. 1873_.
INTRODUCTION.
DATE AND AUTHORSHIP.
THE title or superscription of the book is, chapter i. 1, ‘The
words of Koheleth, the son of David, king of Jerusalem,’ and this is
further explained in verse 12, by ‘I Koheleth was king over Israel in
Jerusalem.’ The only person in Jewish history who answers exactly to
this description is Solomon, and accordingly the whole ancient Church,
Jewish as well as Christian, have regarded Solomon as the undoubted
author of the book. With this conclusion even modern criticism is so
far agreed, that it is universally admitted that Solomon is the hero or
personated author, even though it is denied that he was the real writer.
It is alleged that internal evidence is against the supposition of so
early a date; for that the language and tone of thought in the book
point to a writer further on in Jewish history. The favourite opinion
amongst German scholars is, that Ecclesiastes was composed towards
the end of the Persian dominion. Ewald, indeed, considers that, so
far as language and style is concerned, the book might be the very
latest written in the whole Hebrew Scriptures.
A detailed history of the exposition of the book will be found in the
_Coheleth_ of Dr. Ginsburg, together with a complete discussion of the
reasons for and against Solomonic authorship. It will be unnecessary,
therefore, to go into detail on this point. We shall only add what
concerns the immediate object of the present Commentary, remarking that
several most competent English-speaking scholars remain unconvinced by
arguments which have apparently fully satisfied their German brethren.
Dr. Wordsworth, Professor Plumptre, Dr. Taylor Lewis of America, argue
that the book is really Solomon’s, while even in Germany D. H. A. Hahn
(_Commentar über das Predigerbuch_, Leipzig, 1860) is strongly on the
side of the Solomonic authorship.
The principal arguments in favour of later date derived from internal
evidence, arise from (_first_) the state of violence and misery
depicted in the book with so much bitterness, and which, it is alleged,
cannot be made to harmonize with what we know of the reign of Solomon;
and (_secondly_) the strongly Aramaic character of the language,
which assimilates itself to that of the books of Daniel and Esther.
With regard to the first point (if we have at all found the real
interpretation of the book), it seems improbable that any special
description of a particular period could have been ever intended, or
even any allusion to the special circumstances of any people. So far
also from supposing a time of trouble in the mind of the writer, on the
contrary the point and moral of the book will be enhanced if we suppose
it to be written rather in a time of prosperity than of adversity
or oppression. Thus, if we turn to the expressions of chapter iv. 1
we shall see that to give any special reference to them, and suppose
them peculiar or out of the way, would weaken the force of Koheleth’s
argument. Human life generally, under the very best of external
circumstances, always exhibits the spectacle both of oppressions by
the wicked, and of oppressed without comforters. Now underneath this
statement lies the difficulty that He who permits this is the merciful
Author of Nature Himself, and it is this difficulty which is especially
discussed. There is no necessity to suppose the concluding years of
Persian tyranny to be pointedly alluded to, because it is not under
an Asiatic despotism alone that hypocrites come and go from the place
of the holy (chapter viii. 10), or servants are seen on horseback, and
nobles, like serfs, walking afoot (chapter x. 7), or that men continue
in prosperous wickedness (chapter ix. 3). Indeed, the same may be said
of any other of the similar providential difficulties advanced in this
book, for the very same occurrences may be witnessed now in this age of
civilisation and progress. The reply then to the assertion that it is
‘impossible to reconcile this state of things with the age of Solomon’
is simply this. There is no need even to make the attempt, because
there is no reason to believe that, considering the author’s standpoint,
he intended that the instances of human suffering and disappointment
he cites should be taken otherwise than perfectly generally. What he
adduces of this nature is in sufficient measure true always, at the
best of times. It would blunt the point of his reasoning if it could
be shown that the difficulties he starts were exceptional or temporary;
but this is not so. Koheleth’s repeated declaration is that _all_――that
is, the whole of human life――is vanity or evanescence.
The argument from Aramaic words is much more formidable, and would
be conclusive if our knowledge of the successive stages of the Hebrew
language were less fragmentary and uncertain than is really the case.
It is quite true that such words as מדינה ,רעיון ,רעות ,כבר ,זמן ,פתגם, have an
Aramaic colouring; but we must set against this the fact that, as Ewald
remarks, we have in Ecclesiastes a new philosophical terminology, which
has modified the Hebrew of the book. And again, it will be seen by
referring to the places where these peculiar words occur, that they are
introduced either for the purposes of expressing new ideas or terms not
found in the language elsewhere. Sometimes the more usual word would be
out of harmony with the context, _e.g._ the word זמון replaces the more
ordinary מיעד, because not only is the latter used to signify a _feast_,
but the root-meaning of the former is just what is required by the
argument. Again, כבר, as will be seen stated at length in the notes, is
used in the purely technical sense, of ‘this present,’ and not in the
ordinary meaning of ‘already.’ The unusual ♦אלו, chapter vi. 6, also is
apparently introduced for the sake of the alliteration with הלא in the
next clause, and the once occurring עֲדֶן chapter iv. 3, for the sake of
the equivoke to which its use gives rise. All these Aramaic words are
noticed as they occur in the body of the Commentary, and we think that
the conclusion which results from what there appears is to weaken very
considerably any argument as to date which can be drawn from them one
way or the other.
♦ “הלא” replaced with “אלו”
Again, the object of the book is so peculiar, and so different from
all the rest of Scripture, and especially from those which, supposing
Solomon was the author, would stand related to it in point of time,
that we may well expect some difference of language and colouring.
Again, also, there is another reason. The books immediately subsequent
to Solomon’s era are all prophetic. Now it seems natural that prophets
should use an antique style, which would be tinged with that of the
earlier religious books, while if, on the other hand, as the LXX. seem
to imply by their translation of the word Koheleth, and appears also
from the alliterations in the book itself, it were an address orally
delivered, it would no doubt contain colloquialisms. There are strong
indications that it does so. Now these colloquialisms would certainly
have an Aramaic cast about them. Thus the difference of diction between
the Hebrew of Koheleth and a contemporary prophet would be exaggerated,
and any estimate of date due to this difference proportionately
uncertain.
On the whole, for myself, I have no theory to support either way. I
am content to let the matter rest, as I believe the Scripture itself
leaves it, which, after all, nowhere refers the authorship to Solomon.
In accordance with this, both to save space and to conduce to clearness,
I have always referred to the author by the name Koheleth, and to the
book itself as Ecclesiastes, in the course of the subsequent Commentary.
DESIGN AND METHOD OF THE WORK.
The design of the book is no other than argumentatively to work out the
concluding aphorism of the whole: ‘Fear God, and keep His commandments,
for _this_ is the whole problem of Humanity.’ This truth is never
for a moment lost sight of, not even in those passages which sound
most sceptical or Epicurean. We may compare this marvellous book to
an overture, and say that this truth is its subject. This overture,
however, is written in a minor key; it is almost always plaintive;
sometimes it descends to what sounds like absolute discord; but this
subject floats through its wildest and strangest melodies, resolves its
harshest discords, connects its most erratic wanderings. Koheleth is
a perfect master of sarcasm. A certain grim and bitter yet grave and
holy satire runs through his book. He makes his readers think whether
they will or no. For this purpose he sometimes descends to plays upon
words, equivokes, alliterations, possibly also proverbs in ordinary
circulation. He certainly writes in the ‘vulgar tongue.’ But these
equivokes always help the sense. If Koheleth appears in the guise of a
popular preacher, he never loses sight of the moralist and philosopher.
His sermon, for such we believe it to be, will bear comparison with
another wonderful sermon found in Holy Scripture, with which it has
some striking points of resemblance, and yet how wonderfully different!
The book then opens with an exclamation which serves as a text or
topic――‘Vanity of vanities,’――and forthwith proceeds to state the
question, and work out the conclusion which this topic suggests. Has
mankind any advantage (in the sense of a result in the future) by
reason of his toil or anxiety (the technical word here used is עמל, by
which word is meant the same thing as the Greek expresses by μέριμνα,
cares of this life, Matthew xiii. 22)? This he answers in the negative
by eight aphorisms, four drawn from observation of nature and four from
moral considerations, which we have called the eight _un_beatitudes of
the sermon. This constitutes the first part of the proof. Koheleth then
goes on to discuss the question, Can any solution of this providential
difficulty be discovered? This, in the first place, is attempted to
be answered by an autobiography, in which Koheleth shows in succession
that wisdom, mirth, accumulation of wealth, etc., are alike evanescent
and unsatisfactory, as his own experience (and no one was likely to
do better) abundantly displayed. These together form the first great
division of the book――Chapters I. and II.
In the next five Chapters, III. to VII., the same question is discussed
from another point of view. Koheleth remarks on the unalterable
character of Providence, and shows that even if it were possible that
human wisdom could cause change (which it cannot), that the alteration
could only be for the worse. He begins by enumerating twenty-eight
times or seasons――that is, a fourfold seven――of which the last is
‘a time of peace.’ This is especially worthy of remark, as it is an
instance of one of those hopes of better things which Koheleth allows
to appear, as it were by stealth, amidst his most melancholy utterances.
He then argues this matter, and through a long and sustained course of
reasoning, the conclusion of which is, that God must right the wronged.
But there naturally arises the objection, If this be so, why does
impiety and oppression exist so continually in the very places or
circumstances where we ought to expect the reverse? To this Koheleth
offers two solutions, which, however, are neither satisfactory; the
second indeed would lead to absolute scepticism. The true deduction is
however stated in the last verse of chapter iii. (22), which is, that
if any result is to be accomplished by human toil, it can only consist
in present gratification.
Koheleth then turns to the consideration of oppressions or afflictions,
this turn of thought being that present enjoyment is marred by the
existence of so much irremediable unhappiness; that if this world be
all, the dead are better off than the living; that the result even of
success is envy rather than pleasure; that it is useless labouring for
posterity, and no avail in the present. Koheleth here sarcastically
points out that labour for others does give some advantage, the only
instance where he sees the possibility of any at all. He carefully
limits, however, all this to the present life, this formula ‘under
the sun,’ _i.e._ in this world of labour and toil, being introduced
frequently, showing that all he says is to be taken with this proviso.
In Chapter V. Koheleth begins to display the great remedy for human
ills――that is, piety, patience, and submission to the Divine will,
cautioning against foolish sacrifices, rash vows, rash speeches,
selfishness and avarice. This display of the remedy, however, is as yet
subordinate, the main object being to show that all arguments conspire
to prove the vanity or transitoriness of human existence. With this
Chapter VI. ends, and with it the more argumentative portion of the
treatise.
Chapter VII. opens with a paradoxical statement of seven good things,
which look like evil ones, and on this Koheleth develops the thought
that man does not know a good thing when he sees it. He shows that even
wisdom itself will not necessarily produce happiness in this world,
though this, he is sure, is a good thing; but he is very bitter and
sarcastic on those who, because right does not always succeed, resort
to impiety; this, he shows, is a great and fatal mistake. Though the
proposition that piety is happiness is not formally stated or worked
out argumentatively, nevertheless this is proved so completely that
Koheleth is able at the end of the whole to cite this as the real
result of his argument.
If, however, piety be the remedy for human ills, early piety is
essential to tolerable ease and quiet in this world. This is set forth
in the same paradoxical and sarcastic way as before. We are advised to
avoid certain evils while we can. These are described with great pathos
in Chapter XII. It is however, we believe, quite a mistake to imagine
that the close of the book contains an _allegorical_ description of
old age. The weakness and other trials of age are, no doubt, brought
before us in very poetic and picturesque language. There is an Oriental
richness and floridness about this language at first strange to Western
ears; but the images employed all admit of resolution by an appeal to
the usage of Scripture elsewhere, and can be shown to be quite in place.
The conclusion of the whole is significantly the same as the topic at
the beginning, ‘Vanity of vanities, the whole is vanity.’
The Epilogue, chapter xii. 9, follows. This has been pronounced by some
to be an interpolation, the work of a later hand; but we could no more
imagine a book of the Old Testament ending with such an aphorism as
vanity of vanities, without doing violence to our critical instinct,
than we could believe that the Gospel of St. Mark was ever intended to
end with the words ‘They were afraid’ [ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, Mark xvi. 8]. It
is rather the bold, open statement of the truth, which has in a more or
less covered manner formed the subject of the whole book. The aphorism,
‘Fear God and keep His commandments,’ contains the only possible
solution of providential difficulties or remedy of human ills, and it
is in vain to look for any other. The reasons for this mystery we must
leave to God alone. He will bring into judgment――_i.e._ into adjustment
or declared consistency with justice――every mystery, whether to our
notions good or evil. With this assurance the book appropriately ends.
GRAMMATICAL PECULIARITIES.
The Book of Ecclesiastes being a didactic and argumentative treatise,
and the only work of its kind in the Scriptures, its Hebrew is modified
to meet the requirements of that which is a new philosophy, so that we
may fully indorse Ewald’s expression, that ‘Koheleth uses the Hebrew
language as a flexible instrument for the expression of novel ideas.’
This naturally implies a usage of words and phrases peculiar to this
book, and accounts for the large number of unusual forms and once
occurring words and the like which here meet us. It will be apparent
to any who will diligently examine the text, that Koheleth confines
himself very strictly indeed to the rules of his own grammar, and uses
articles, prepositions, and tenses with an accuracy not inferior to
Greek itself. For example, there is a real distinction to be discovered
between the usage of masculine and feminine forms, where a substantive
is of both genders. It is not a matter of indifference whether the full
relative is used or the contracted form; on the contrary, it will be
seen that the contracted relative gives an optative or subjunctive
sense; or whether a verb governs directly or through the intervention
of the particle את; a distinction which the LXX. were quite aware of,
and which gave rise to their adverbial σὺν. What, for want of a better
term, we have called distributive plurals――_i.e._ a singular noun and
plural verb in agreement, or _vice versâ_――are exceedingly significant.
They have a peculiar shade of meaning, according to circumstances
and position in the sentence. It is too a matter of some consequence
whether the nominative precedes or follows the verb; hence in the
running translation this order is never reversed, even where our idiom
requires it, but explanatory words are introduced. All these matters
are, where necessary, pointed out in the notes――perhaps some may
imagine pressed too far, and repeated _ad nauseam_; but the excuse must
be that on these minutiæ depend the evidence of correct rendering. If
thus a good sense is made out, as it were spontaneously, and which,
moreover, is found to fall into place as it occurs in the context, we
have strong evidence that we have hit the real meaning.
Connected with this grammatical usage is a peculiar terminology, also
to be expected in a scientific treatise. Thus דבר is very commonly
rendered in this Commentary by ‘reasoning,’ the exact idea implied
being a matter or thing reasoned about, with the further notion or
conclusion that this reason will become ground of action. No single
English or even Greek word will render it, but once let us master its
real significance, and the force and cogency of many passages will
become manifest. Again, חפץ, which has the sense of ‘an agreeable
occurrence,’ ‘a providence,’ and then generally of ‘any event,’ in this
book denotes a ‘_providential_ occurrence.’ Again, עמל is not exactly
toil, but the fatigue, distress, or anxiety that comes of it. It
differs from ענין, which is also anxiety, but that kind of anxiety which
comes of uncertainty as to a future result. Two most important words
are סכלות and הללות: the former is that kind of folly which has the
appearance of wisdom, clever folly, or foolish wisdom; the latter is
that kind of folly which is begotten of a false expectation of the
result, as in our expression ‘made a fool of.’ So again כבר is not an
adverb ‘already,’ but rather a substantive,――this present considered
as now existing. These technical words are all noticed as they occur,
and a sense given, the proof of the correctness of which is that
appropriate meaning is made in every place in which they occur. As
several are found nowhere else in Scripture, this is the only true
method of coming at their meaning. It is also worthy of notice that
these words occur usually seven or ten times, or some other round
or mystic number. This happens so frequently that it can hardly be
accidental, but I have seldom been able to trace any rule or law in
this circumstance. On the whole, however, it may be taken as an axiom
that when Koheleth uses a peculiar word, he intends to express a
peculiar idea, and his meaning must be sought accordingly. Careful
attention to this point clears up many difficulties.
Alliteration and paronomasia occur with great and characteristic
frequency, a proof surely that the book was intended to be preached
or delivered as an address. It is, of course, very difficult to give
these in the English version. Sometimes in the paraphrastic translation
this is attempted by means of rhymes and alliterations. I can hardly
pronounce these quite successful, and often have felt inclined to
return to a more literal rendering, but then this most characteristic
feature of the book would have been lost to the English reader. Every
one who has ever addressed an assembly knows how very telling these
hits are, and moreover they are of real importance to the commentator,
as bringing the words on which the alliteration depends into artificial
prominence. There is a danger, no doubt, that when once the mind is
aroused to this, that equivokes should be found where they were not
intended; but of this the reader must judge.
This perhaps is the best point at which to discuss the meaning of the
word Koheleth. In its present form and pointing קֹהֶלֶת is the active
feminine participle of Kal of the verb קהל, occurring as a verb only
in niphal and hiphil. The feminine noun occurs Deuteronomy xxxiii. 4,
קְהִלַּת――_i.e._ this word differently pointed――which the LXX. render
by συναγωγῆς. קְהִלַּת occurs Nehemiah v. 7, rendered ἐκκλησίαν. With
this before us it seems beside the mark to seek a meaning out of the
root קהל. According to the usage observable in this book, feminines
(we should prefer to call them abstracts) in ת differ from those in
ה――compare עמדת, chapter i. 4; the abstract in this form again becomes
as it were a concrete. Thus we should incline to indorse the view
enunciated by Preston, who considers the word to be represented by
‘collector’ or ‘concionator’ in Latin. Both these meanings we believe
are contained in the word, and it is quite consistent with what we know
of the style of Ecclesiastes to admit that both these meanings were
intended to be conveyed. The discourse is a collection of separate
but connected aphorisms on the transitoriness of human existence――the
author is thus a collector of them; and as the discourse was delivered
apparently when collected, he is a concionator or preacher also. The
word used by the LXX., ἐκκλησιαστὴς, occurs nowhere else, either in
the Old or New Testaments, so that the _precise_ meaning they affixed
to the word is unknown. In classical Greek it means preacher.
The repetition of a word, whether substantive or particle, in the
same sentence, of course gives emphasis to that word; to translate
accurately, therefore, when this occurs, we have to add some English
equivalent, such as ‘this’ or ‘as well,’ and so forth, see Commentary
_passim_. A careful attention to this rule will often considerably help
to clear up obscure passages.
ON THE PECULIAR RENDERINGS OF THE VERSION OF THE LXX.
The remark of Delitzsch on the translation of the LXX., affixed to the
Book of Psalms (Delitzsch on the Psalms, Clark’s Library, Edinburgh)
may be introduced here:――‘This translation, as being the oldest key
to the understanding of the language of the Old Testament writings, as
being the oldest mirror of the Old Testament text, and as an important
check upon the interpretation of Scripture handed down in the Talmud
and Midrash, and in that portion of the national literature not
originating in Egypt, is invaluable.’ For this remark applies to the
rendering of Ecclesiastes in an equal, if not greater degree, and may
be offered as an excuse, if one be needed, for the comparatively large
space assigned to the discussion of the Septuagint renderings.
A peculiarity which meets us in this book is the occurrence of the
preposition σὺν followed by an accusative, and in one case a genitive,
and which seldom if ever occurs in other books. This apparently
trifling circumstance, which is usually treated as a barbarism, will
give the clue which will lead to some curious and interesting facts
connected with the methods of translation adopted by the LXX.
If we examine carefully and in detail the wording of the LXX. we can
hardly fail to be struck with the excessive care that is taken to
render in the exact order of the Hebrew――a remark which may be extended
to other portions of this version, the Book of Job being, however, a
striking exception, (and when there is any considerable departure, in
almost every instance hitherto examined a serious variation of text
in the different recensions of the LXX. will be found to occur.) In
Ecclesiastes this order is so strict that, with hardly an exception,
it would be possible to print the Greek text as it stands as an
interlinear translation. This most interesting point deserves further
investigation than appears as yet to have been given to it. My own
impression from this circumstance, is that the version of the LXX. was
made with the idea that those who used it had the Hebrew before them,
and this hypothesis, for in truth it is nothing more, will I think
group together more facts than any other suppositions which have been
adopted to explain these strange renderings met with in the LXX.,――as,
for example, variation of original text, wilful corruption on the
part of the translators, Hagadic influence (of which more presently),
and the like. The LXX. have executed their work so well, that
notwithstanding this restriction which they thus laid upon themselves,
we have a very good translation, which for many centuries was used as
the sole representative of the ancient Scriptures, and on which the
whole fabric of ancient theology was erected.
This interlinear character, as we may call it, of the version of the
LXX., will explain why they render the same Hebrew word by such very
different Greek equivalents. In an interlinear translation there is no
special value in uniform rendering; rather the reverse. It is better
even to study variety than uniformity, although we believe that the
LXX. do neither the one nor the other, but simply endeavour to give
the best possible rendering of the passage before them. For example,
the word חפץ is rendered in chapter iii. 1, 17, v. 8 (7), viii. 6, by
πρᾶγμα, and in the other three cases in which it occurs, viz., chapter
v. 4 (3), xii. 1, 10, by θέλημα. Now the real meaning of this word, as
we have shown, is an agreeable providential occurrence, or, since all
providential occurrences imply the Divine will on their side, any such
whatever. The LXX. use the one rendering or the other as best suits
the context. This book containing so large a number of technical words,
the meaning of which is to be sought by a careful comparison of all
the passages in which they occur, the renderings of the LXX. become of
special interest. The meaning compounded of the meanings of the LXX.’s
renderings, to use a mathematical simile, will give us often the
precise shade of signification of the Hebrew of which we are in search,
and this will then approve itself as correct by its suitableness in
every instance.
The same observation applies to the grammar of the Greek as
representing that of the Hebrew. There is no attempt whatever to
render Hebrew grammatical forms with any uniformity. Hebrew perfects
are rendered by Greek presents, aorists, or perfects; Hebrew presents
by aorists or perfects. Participles are rendered sometimes by
participles, at others by principal verbs. The same Hebrew prepositions
are sometimes rendered by different Greek prepositions, and sometimes
simply by case-endings. The relative is rendered by the relative, by
the pronoun, and by ὅτι. The Hebrew conjugations are not represented on
any settled principle; Piels are sometimes indeed apparently marked by
a preposition compounded with the verb, sometimes not noticed at all.
In certain cases in which the root is doubtful, as for example in ain
vaw, and ain ain verbs, the LXX. do not always follow the Masoretic
pointing and derivation. On the whole, however, the deviations of the
LXX., from both pointing and accentuation, are more apparent than real,
and may be explained, for the most part, on the principle that the
translators felt themselves obliged to follow the order of the words
in the original.
We must, however, bear in mind that the present text of the LXX. is
of all texts the most time-worn, and often requires correction. Most
providentially we do not depend on one recension; we have in existing
copies the remains of several, and we may make use of them to restore
the original readings. The problem in this case differs essentially
from that which meets us in revising the Greek text of the New
Testament. Here diplomatic evidence has not the same weight as there.
Emendations may be detected, even when better readings of the Hebrew,
by want of conformity to the Hebrew order (and the temptation to make
such kind of alterations, when the version was used independently,
would clearly be very great), or again a comparison of the various
readings will enable us to guess with tolerable confidence what the
Hebrew originally was. In this way, when the Hebrew text is doubtful,
we can ascertain the correct reading by searching for that common
origin from which the variants in the LXX. were derived, and we may
then turn round on the version with the help of the Hebrew, and show
how the changes successively arose. An instance of this will be found
at chapter x. 10; how far I have succeeded the reader must judge.
We must also bear in mind that what we should now denote by marginal
renderings are in the ancient versions inserted in the text. The
interlinear character of the version enables us to detect this: we
find two Greek words standing in place of a single Hebrew equivalent.
The result of all this, as applied in the Book of Ecclesiastes, is
to vindicate the accuracy of the received Hebrew text, and, in a less
degree, of the pointing and accentuation also. Only in a very few
instances is it needful to propose an emendation of the Hebrew text,
and that where the ancient versions are apparently unanimous in
requiring it.
There remains another point, however. Dr. Ginsburg (and from his
extensive acquaintance with Jewish literature no one is better
qualified to give an opinion) considers that Hagadic influence must
be taken largely into account in explaining difficult passages in
Ecclesiastes; amongst other points he notices the rendering of את
by σὺν, which has been referred to already. ‘Commentators,’ he says,
‘have been perplexed to account for this barbarism, and violation
of grammatical propriety, but a reference to Hagadic exegesis will
show that this Hebrew particle was looked up to as having a mystical
signification, because the two letters, א and ת, of which it is
composed, are the Alpha and Omega of the Hebrew alphabet. Hence the
anxiety of the translator to indicate this particle in Greek, when a
passage appeared to him to be fraught with special mysteries.’ But,
as he remarks, it is only in twenty-nine instances out of seventy-one
occurrences of this particle that it is so rendered by the LXX.
Moreover, Dr. Ginsburg has not shown that these passages are specially
mysterious. They are in fact neither more nor less so than some others
in which this particle is not so rendered. An examination of these
passages will show, we think convincingly, that what the LXX. wished
to do was to point out that את was emphatic and with the meaning
of ‘respect to,’ or the like, as will be seen by reference to the
Commentary, especially chapters ii. 17, iii. 17, vii. 26, viii. 8, 15.
The Hagadic influence, according to Dr. Ginsburg, is still more evident
in the peculiar rendering of chapter ii. 12, as well as chapters ii. 17,
iii. 15, iv. 17, v. 1, all which are fully treated in the Commentary,
and the renderings of the LXX. explained and elucidated, it is hoped
satisfactorily. So far from the true explanation of these renderings
being found in the Chaldee paraphrase, as Dr. Ginsburg imagines, that
version gives distorted interpretations of passages but partially
understood. Again, the gloss of the LXX. at chapter ii. 15 is shared
by the Syriac, and is a marginal reading; chapter ii. 17 is a verbatim
reading of the Hebrew in every particular; and the gloss at chapter
ii. 9 is too evidently foisted in from the margin to make it of much
value in any argument. See note there.
Holding as I do the paramount authority of the LXX., I have not
scrupled to follow them against the Masoretic interpretation when the
sense of a passage seemed to require it, and I deem it a sufficient
answer to any objections on this head, that the rendering proposed is
supported by the LXX. On the whole, however, these differences are,
as remarked above, not very great, and we have rather occasion for
surprise, not that there is here and there a divergence, but that on
the whole there is so substantial agreement. The pointing which we have
in our Hebrew Bibles embodies a most valuable and venerable tradition,
but in its present form younger by centuries than that furnished by
the rendering of the LXX. While, therefore, we admit its great value,
we ought not to make its authority absolute, and this is done to all
intents and purposes by those who reject without question the ancient
interpretation because it conflicts with the present pointing. No
language is too high to characterize our obligations to those Jewish
fathers who have guarded so faithfully that special trust committed
to them――the oracles of God. But the Synagogue is no more infallible
in matters of criticism than is the Church. Neither the Masorets nor
the LXX. are inspired, though inspiration has been by their respective
partisans vehemently claimed for both. Each party, also, has unduly
depreciated the other, and the Hebrew scholars have been for centuries
divided into punctists and anti-punctists. But as there is no royal
road to learning, so there is no short-cut to certainty; the whole
evidence, let it come from whence it may, must be diligently weighed
and compared. So far as the version of the LXX. is concerned, this is
not done until their errors, or supposed errors, have been at least
duly explained and accounted for, even when their renderings are
rejected.
OTHER VERSIONS OF ANTIQUITY.
Next in order in point of antiquity to the version of the LXX. stands
the Syriac Peshito. This I have sometimes quoted in the present
Commentary, having considered it my duty to make myself acquainted
with this version, so that if I am not in a position to offer anything
of my own, I can follow other commentators, and test their accuracy.
The citations are made from the edition of Dr. Lee, published by the
Bible Society. As might be expected, the Syriac version stands midway
between the LXX. and Masoretic text, agreeing sometimes with the one
and sometimes with the other. It is often assumed that the peculiar
renderings of the Syriac which agree with the LXX. against the
Masoretic rendering, arise from corrections of the former text by the
latter; this, however, is not proved. The existence of such an element
of correction may well be admitted, but it is only one out of many, and
in some cases we shall, I think, have reason to conclude that the sense,
set aside as of no critical value by some commentators, does in fact
embody the real meaning of the passage under discussion. See chapter
x. 10 for an instance of this.
The Vulgate is generally accessible; its value is subordinate as
compared with the above-mentioned versions, being only, as is well
known, corrected from the Hebrew by Jerome. Sometimes, however, the
evidence it affords of an ancient reading is all the more valuable on
this account. See the note at chapter x. 10.
The fragments of the ancient Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus,
and Theodotion are often of the very highest value, and diligent use
has been made of them. The edition used is that of Field, _Originis
Hexapla_, edition by Fridericus Field, Oxford, 1867, vol. ii. The
_Codex Syriaco Hexaplaris_, H. Middedorpf, Berlin, 1835, has also been
examined.
THE TRANSLATIONS OF THIS COMMENTARY.
Two translations of this book are here offered to the reader, the first,
dispersed through the notes, denoted by bold-faced type, is absolutely
literal, even to utter baldness, and rigidly follows the exact order
of the Hebrew. In the accompanying running commentary the construction
of the sentences is carefully pointed out, the rendering of the LXX.
noted where peculiar, and the attempt made in all cases to account for
the peculiarity, either by showing that they have preserved the true
interpretation, or else explaining how the error arose. The sense thus
obtained is embodied in the paraphrastic version printed at the head
of the page. There has been no attempt made to adopt, in this latter
translation, the phraseology of the Authorized Version; rather the
reverse, as it is not intended to be independent, but is to be regarded
as of the nature of an explanatory commentary or an English Targum upon
the text. It also seeks to render idea for idea rather than word for
word, and gives in every case the meaning which on the whole seemed
most probable, and squared best with the context. It attempts also to
represent equivokes and alliterations in the original, by corresponding
equivokes and alliterations――not necessarily in the equivalent words
of the translation,――and points out, by figures, italics, and other
typographical signs, instances of artificial arrangement of topics and
the like; see Chapters I. and II., etc. To the English reader a caution
is here needed. The very nature of such a version requires that all be
made to run quite smoothly; thus, however obscure the passage, a sense
is given, and difficulties are put out of sight. But after all this
only represents the meaning the commentator thinks most probable, and
he may be quite wrong, and altogether mistaken. Such a version is after
all a Targum――in other words, a well-meaning attempt at explanation,
with some amplification, of the sacred text. In dealing then with it
let the reader imitate the Jews of old, who, when they read the sacred
text itself, did so with every outward manifestation of respect and
deference; but when they came to read the Targum altered their manner,
and showed by posture and gesture that they clearly regarded this as
but a mere exposition of the Divine Word, and of no authority.
The following works are assumed to be easily accessible to English
readers:――_Ecclesiastes_, Theodore Preston, London, 1845; _Commentary
on Ecclesiastes_, Moses Stuart, New York, 1851; _Coheleth_, by
Christian D. Ginsburg, London, 1861; _Ecclesiastes or Koheleth_, by
Dr. Otto Zöckler, edited by Prof. Taylor Lewis, LL.D., Edinburgh, 1870;
_Commentary on the Bible_, C. Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, London,
1868. The work of Dr. Ginsburg especially will be found indispensable.
Dr. Ginsburg has stated at length, and for the most part in the
writers’ own words, the different opinions of critics, Jewish and
Christian, who have written on this book. His vast reading and
erudition are thus made available for future scholars. Once for all, I
must acknowledge the deep obligation I am under to his work. If in many
of my renderings I am compelled to differ from him, I am not the less
indebted to him on that account. If I have really seen further than he
has, it is only because he has, so to speak, allowed me to mount on his
shoulders. Any one who takes the trouble to compare my work with his
will see that most of my renderings could have been supported by a name
of weight. If, however, I have the authority of the LXX. in my favour,
I am content, and cite no others. I have, however, not failed to resort
to such of the commentators in Dr. Ginsburg’s list, German and English,
as well as some published since the appearance of his book, as would be
likely to give additional light.
The work of Dr. Graetz, _Kohelet oder der Salomonische Prediger_, von
Dr. H. Graetz, Leipzig, 1871, did not come to hand until the larger
portion of this commentary was in type.
The texts made use of are those contained in the _Polyglotten Bibel,
zum praktischen Handgebrauch bearbeitet_ von R. Stier, und R. G. W.
Theile, Dritte Auflage, Bielfeld, 1864.
The following notation of MS. and Editions from the above work is
adopted in the commentary:――
A Alexandrine text.
A¹ Alexandrine Manuscript.
A² Alexandrine Edition, Grabe, Breitinger, Reineccius.
B Vatican text.
B¹ Vatican Manuscript.
B² Roman Edition, 1587.
C Codex Frederico-Augustanus (of Tischendorf.)
D Codex Ephraemi rescriptus (of Tischendorf.)
E Editio Aldina, 1518.
F Complutensium Polyglot.
X Other MS. not especially named.
It may also be noticed that all citations are from chapter and verse
as in the Authorized Version; where these differ from the Hebrew, the
latter is added in a bracket――thus chapter v. 9 (8).
ECCLESIASTES.
CHAPTER I.
THE words of the Preacher, │ THE discourse of the Preacher,
the son of David, king of │ the son of David, king of
Jerusalem. │ Jerusalem.
I. (1.) =The words of Koheleth, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.=
The meaning of the term Koheleth, and the question of authorship of
the book, is discussed in the introduction. We have only to remark here
on the use of the word דבר as it occurs in this book in the technical
sense not only of a ‘word’ or ‘reason,’ but also including the matter
or thing which the word represents. Usually it refers to words,
reasonings, and matters connected with the mysteries of Providence――the
whole treatise itself being argumentative and didactic, discussing the
vanity, that is, the transitoriness, of human existence, as its topic.
│ SECTION I.――_The vanity or
│ evanescence of all things
│ human._
│
2 Vanity of vanities, │ Utterly evanescent, utterly
saith the Preacher, vanity of │ evanescent, saith the Preacher;
vanities; all _is_ vanity. │ the whole is evanescent.
(2.) =Vanity of vanities, said Koheleth; vanity of vanities= (very
emphatic), =the whole= (הכל, with the article giving a slightly
different notion to כל, the ‘whole collectively’ therefore; the word is
equivalent to the Greek τὸ πᾶν, with the limitation however to human
life in this world, as will become manifest in the course of the book)
is =vanity=, (הבל, that which is ‘evanescent’ or ‘transitory,’ but
never used in the modern sense of being frivolous or empty.) There
is nothing of scoffing epicureanism in this book; the life of man is
ever spoken of in the most serious and solemn tones. There is, indeed,
much sarcasm, but it never touches upon lightness or indifference; it
is always grave and solemn, and even when to superficial observation
appearing equivocal or sceptical, proves, on further examination, to
hide promises and hopes beneath its bitterness. This first verse may
be looked upon as the text or topic of the discourse; Koheleth next
proceeds to work out the argument suggested by it in detail.
3 What profit hath a man │ Is there any profitable
of all his labour which he │ result to Humanity in all
taketh under the sun? │ his cares, over which he ever
│ moils, in this hot work-day
│ world? [No, for]
(3.) =What is?= (expecting the answer no, and so nearly equivalent to a
denial) =the profit= (יתרון, a word peculiar to this book――occurs chapter
i. 3; ii. 11, 13 twice; iii. 9; v. 9 (8), 16 (15); vii. 12; x. 10,
11――_i.e._ ten times in all; it is a technical word, and is used to
signify that which _remains_ over and above after the act is performed,
and apart from its present results. Koheleth uses frequently these
nouns ending in ון――thus יתר ‘to extend,’ ‘run over,’ יתרון ‘remainder,’
זכר ‘remember,’ זכרון ‘remembrance,’ etc. These nouns are in their
nature abstracts, but differ from the ordinary abstracts; see chapter
i. 14) =to man= (לאדם, this word occurs in its different combinations
forty-eight times in this book, and always with the signification of
man as a member of the human race. There is a tone of personification
about the word similar to that which occurs in the expression ‘the
old _Adam_;’ when this generic character is not to be expressed, then
איש or אנוש is used instead; see chapters i. 8; ix. 14 and 15), =in all
his toil= (עמל, a favourite word of Koheleth, and used as frequently
in this book as in all the rest of Scripture put together. The exact
meaning to be affixed to it, and which, carefully kept in view, will
be found to explain more than one otherwise obscure passage, is that
toil, care, or anxiety which labour produces, and answers to the idea
contained in our metaphor ‘takes _pains_;’ see chapter ii. 20), =which
he toils at= (this is the first instance which occurs of the contracted
relative ש־ joined to the word. Koheleth uses also the full relative
אשר, but with a slight difference of meaning. The contracted relative
refers to the word only which it joins, and in case of verbs often
gives a subjunctive or optative meaning; the full relative refers
back to the whole idea or clause. Hence the meaning of this passage
is this, ‘Is there any abiding advantage to humanity of the pains
of his labouring in so far as he does take pains, or toils’) =under
the sun= (or in this present state of existence). The phrase תחת השמש
occurs twenty-five times in this book, and is always expressive of
a limitation. It shows that what is affirmed is to be understood as
confined to its relation to this sublunary existence only. The idea
implied is that of man toiling under the sun in the heat of the day
in the sweat of his brow (Genesis iii. 17), and earnestly desiring the
shadow (Job vii. 2), which shadow is yet the symbol of decaying life.
It is true that Ecclesiastes is never quoted in the New Testament,
but there are certainly several allusions to it, more or less direct;
one of these apparently occurs Revelation vii. 16: οὐ πεινάσουσιν
ἔτι, οὐδὲ διψήσουσιν ἔτι, οὐδ’ οὐ μὴ πέσῃ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ὁ ἥλιος, οὐδὲ πᾶν
καῦμα――‘They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more, neither
shall the sun light on them by day, nor any heat.’ The Chaldee Targum
expresses this idea quaintly but forcibly: ‘What advantage is there
to a man after his death from all his labour which he laboured under
the sun in this world, except he studied the word of God, in order
to receive a good reward in the world to come from before the Lord
of the world?’ In order to remind the reader of this meaning of the
words ‘under the sun,’ I have whenever they occur paraphrased them
by ‘in this hot work-day world’――not that this paraphrase is quite
satisfactory, but it is the best I could find.
To answer the above question, Koheleth cites _eight_ different
instances; four from natural, and four from moral experience. Those
we might call the eight _un_beatitudes of this sermon.
4 _One_ generation passeth │ I. A generation comes, and
away, and _another_ generation │ that generation departs. But
cometh: but the earth abideth │ the earth the same abides.
for ever. │
(4.) =A generation comes= (_i.e._ proceeds; the word occurs five times
in the passage). =A generation sets= (using exactly the same word as
for the setting of the sun in the next verse), =but the earth to the
age abideth= (_i.e._ remains the same as it was ‘to the age’ לעלם――this
word is used in a technical sense, and occurs chapters i. 4, 10; ii. 16;
iii. 11, 14; ix. 6; and xii. 5 in this book. The LXX. render by αἰών,
which Bengel says is ‘sæculum præsens, mundus in sua indole cursu et
censu.’ Hengstenberg observes that it is not an absolutely endless
eternity, but only a future of unlimited length. Bengel’s definition,
‘the present period in its quality, course, and account,’ is exactly
what the word signifies in this book. It is to be noticed that
each instance of change is followed by a sentence which points out
that this change is resultless. In the first, the fluctuating and
fleeting generations or life-periods of man contrast with the absolute
endurance of an unchanged order of things). ‘The great mill-wheel of
existence only revolves for the same cogs to come uppermost again and
again.’――[Hamilton, _Royal Preacher_.]
5 The sun also ariseth, │ II. Bursts forth the sun,
and the sun goeth down, and │ and sets that sun again; and
¹hasteth to his place where │ wearily advancing, bursts
he arose. │ forth as he did before.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ panteth. │
(5.) =And rises= (_i.e._ ‘bursts out’ or ‘irradiates’) =the sun, and
sets the sun= (as ‘sun’ is repeated, the second is equivalent to that
same sun) =and towards his place panting= (this word ‘pant,’ שאף,
occurs Job vii. 2; Psalm lvii. 3; Psalm cxix. 131, and denotes earnest
desire: the metaphor is a very beautiful one in this context)――=rising=
(irradiating) =is he there=.
6 The wind goeth toward the │ III. Going southwards, and
south, and turneth about unto │ twisting northwards, twisting,
the north; it whirleth about │ twisting goes the blast; and
continually, and the wind │ so with all its twistings the
returneth again according to │ wind returns.
his circuits. │
(6.) =Going= (_i.e._ ‘walking,’ ‘proceeding,’ as in verse 4) =towards
the south= (the quarter of warm winds), and =turning round towards the
north= (the place of cold), =turning turns, going the wind= (there is
in the Hebrew a concourse of sibilant letters imitating the sound of
the wind, which is attempted to be rendered in the paraphrase), =and
in its turnings returns the wind= (that is, ever goes round in the
same circuits, as the Authorized Version translates). Thus we have an
allusion to the four cardinal points of the universe, North, South,
East, and West.
7 All the rivers run into │ IV. All the torrents are
the sea; yet the sea _is_ │ running towards the sea, that
not full; unto the place │ sea which never overflows;
from whence the rivers come, │ to the place where these
thither they ¹return again. │ torrents are hastening,
│ thither they are only
¹ _Hebrew_ return to go. │ returning to go back.
(7.) =All the torrents= (נחל, a mountain stream especially) =are going
to the sea, and the sea it is not full= (equivalent to ‘that sea which
is never filled or any fuller’), =to the place= to =which the rivers=
(contract relative, meaning these _same_ rivers) =are going, thence are
they returning to go back.= (So the LXX.; others with the Authorized
Version translate, ‘Thither they return again.’) It is to be remarked
that this fact is scientifically accurate in statement. The Targum
has the gloss that the rivers flow into the ocean which _surrounds
the world like a ring_, and that they return again through the
_subterranean channels_, but Koheleth knows nothing of such false
philosophy.
8 All things _are_ full of │ V. All matters are fatiguing;
labour; man cannot utter _it_: │ impossible for any one to
the eye is not satisfied with │ reason out. Never is the eye
seeing, nor the ear filled │ satisfied by seeing, nor ever
with hearing. │ the ear filled with sound.
(8.) =All the words= (with the article, and therefore generic;
‘matters’ or ‘things,’ in the technical sense of things reasoned about,
see verse 1) =are fatiguing= (so the LXX. and Vulgate; Ginsburg has
‘feeble;’ Preston, ‘in activity;’ and Hengstenberg, ‘all words become
weary;’ but the ancient verses make better sense with the context),
=not possible is it for a man= (not אדם here, but איש = ‘one,’ or ‘any
one’) =to utter= them (לדבר, ‘to speak rationally concerning them,’
and so to account for their existence or explain their nature. The
impossibility of exhausting a subject by talking or reasoning about
it is here the point, as is evident from the order of the words); =not
satisfied= (answering to the ‘not possible’ above) =is the eye with
seeing, and not is filled the ear by sound= (or by what it hears). So
then, while the consideration of any matter is pretty sure to produce
weariness, it is quite certain not to produce satisfaction.
9 The thing that hath been, │ VI. Whatever has been? ’tis
it _is that_ which shall be; │ just the same as will be; and
and that which is done _is_ │ whatever has been done? ’tis
that which shall be done: │ just the same as will be done.
and _there is_ no new _thing_ │ So there is nothing altogether
under the sun. │ new within this work-day world.
(9.) =What is that which has been?= it =is the same which will be; and
what is that which has been done?= it =is the same which will be done=
(so the LXX., literally following the Heb. text), =and there is nothing
all new under the sun.= The Authorized Version understands by this ‘no
new thing;’ but the peculiar position of this word ‘all’ seems to imply
that ‘nothing’ must be taken with some slight qualification,――nothing
morally new. The next verse admits material novelty.
10 Is there _any_ thing │ VII. [No doubt] there occurs
whereof it may be said, See, │ a matter such that people
this _is_ new? it hath been │ _say_, See, now this is really
already of old time, which was │ new. The present was it once
before us. │ in some age before our time.
(10.) =There is= (יש, which is so far different from היה that it assumes
the existence as a fact, ‘There really are matters which are called
new’) =a matter which= one =says= (contracted relative joined to the
verb, and giving an emphasis to it, equivalent therefore to our ‘of
which it may be _said_, indeed’) =see this new it is= (emphatic) =the
present= (כבר occurs eight times, viz., i. 10, ii. 12, 16, iii. 15
twice, iv. 2, vi. 10, and ix. 6, 7――in Ecclesiastes only; it is a
technical word used to denote the present state of things, that part
of the עלם or ‘age’ which is now in existence. In the later Hebrew and
Syriac it is used as an adverb, ‘already,’ but that is not its use here.
This remark is the more important because it is one of those so-called
Aramaic words, the occurrence of which is supposed to indicate the late
period of this book’s composition. A careful observance of its real
import will throw considerable light on several very obscure passages.
Generally, it may be taken for granted that if Koheleth uses a new
word or form not known in other parts of the Scriptures, it is because
he desires to indicate a new idea.) =It was to the ages which= (full
relative, referring back, therefore, to the whole sentence) =were from
before us= (as we have ages in the plural, followed by a singular verb,
היה, the meaning is some one of the ages). This thing which is said to
be new is really one of those forgotten matters which existed in one or
other of the eras which were before our time.
11 _There is_ no remembrance │ VIII. There is no remembrance
of former _things_; neither │ of former matters; and so also
shall there be _any_ │ with regard to subsequent ones
remembrance of _things_ that │ which will be, there will be no
are to come with _those_ that │ remembrance with those who will
shall come after. │ succeed them.
(11.) =There is nothing= of =remembrance= (or memorial) =to former=
events (or persons) =and in addition to succeeding= events =which
will be. There will not be to them= (emphatic) =a remembrance= (the
repetition of this word shows it to be the prominent word of the
sentence) =amongst those which shall be to= (_i.e._ belonging to)
the =last= of all (so the LXX.) We have here the feminine form, אחרנה.
Koheleth usually expresses the abstracts by this form, and so here.
Thus, then, we find that history always repeats itself: not so, however,
that its events can be anticipated, but always so that its teachings
may be forgotten.
This then forms the first division of the book. By these eight
instances Koheleth proves the existence of unceasing toilsome care
and resultless progression in all human things. He proceeds in the
next place to give his own personal experience, in the form of an
autobiography to the same effect. All commentators, even those who deny
that Solomon himself was the author of this book, are agreed that he is
the hero, and that his life and experience form the groundwork of what
is here set before us.
│ SECTION II.――_Containing a
│ more formal discussion of the
│ problem of human existence,
│ drawn from the Preacher’s own
│ observation and experience._
│
12 ¶ I the Preacher was king │ Now, I myself, the Preacher,
over Israel in Jerusalem. │ was king over Israel in
│ Jerusalem,
(12.) =I= (emphatic) =Koheleth was king over Israel in Jerusalem.=
Ginsburg supposes that by this declaration that he _was_ king, he
intends to imply that he was so no longer; but not only does the LXX.
render by an imperfect, but the same word occurs in precisely the same
form at Exodus ii. 22, and clearly at the time there mentioned Moses
continued to be a stranger in Midian. The object in stating this fact
is rather to show that as a king he possessed peculiar facilities for
making the investigation, an account of which follows.
13 And I gave my heart to │ and I took the greatest pains
seek and search out by wisdom │ to seek out and to investigate
concerning all _things_ that │ by means of wisdom everything
are done under heaven: this │ that is done within the limits
sore travail hath God given │ of this world; how it is a
to the sons of man ¹to be │ painful uncertainty appointed
exercised therewith. │ of God to the human race that
│ they should be distracted with
¹ _Or_, to afflict them. │ it.
(13.) =And I set my heart= (gave great pains to, or thought much on,
see i. 17, vii. 21, viii. 9, 10; Daniel x. 12; 1 Chronicles xxii. 19)
=to inquiring= (דרש, being used of something lost or hidden, Genesis
xxv. 22, Deuteronomy xxii. 2) =and to investigating= (תור, refers to
spying out or searching, Numbers xiii. 15, chapter vii. 25) =in wisdom=
(the Authorized Version considers that wisdom was the means by which
inquiry was made) =concerning= (על, over) =all which= (equivalent to
‘all that which’) =is done= (but being niphal it has an objective sense,
and includes what is suffered) =under the heavens= (this formula occurs
chapter ii. 3, and iii. 1, and is of larger import than under the
sun) =it is= (‘I mean that’ is the equivalent expression in English)
=uncertainty= (ענין, this is another technical word, it occurs eight
times, chapter i. 13, ii. 23, 26, iii. 10, iv. 8, v. 3 (4), viii. 16,
and a careful comparison of places will show that the meaning is
‘uncertainty,’ accompanied with ‘anxiety’ as to what is to happen in
the future) =which is an evil= (for it is without the article) =given=
of =God= (without the article; because God is here used personally, it
is nominative to נתן of course, but as the nominative follows the verb,
this is the best way of rendering in this case) =to the sons of the
Adam= (the ‘whole human race’ is the meaning of this form), that they
may be =made anxious= (LXX. τοῦ περισπᾶσθαι) =therewith= (emphatic).
14 I have seen all the works │ I perceived with respect to
that are done under the sun; │ all the actions whatsoever, in
and, behold, all _is_ vanity │ so far as they are performed
and vexation of spirit. │ within this work-day world,
│ that they are certainly all of
│ them (1.) evanescent, (2.) a
│ vexation of spirit,
(14.) =I have seen= (I have observed, that is) =with respect to all
actions= (את is here emphatic as standing first) =which are performed=
(niphal and contracted relative, hence having the meaning in so far as
they are or may be done) =under the sun= (for without this limitation
the above proposition would not be true), =and behold= (asserting a
matter of fact patent to all) =the whole= (with the article and in its
usual sense, see chapter i. 2) is =a vanity= (_i.e._ an instance of
something evanescent) =and a vexation of spirit= (רעות, occurs seven
times in this book, viz., chapters i. 14, ii. 11, 17, 26, iv. 4, 6,
and vi. 9; רעיון occurs three times, i. 17, ii. 22, iv. 16. These words
have usually been regarded as absolutely synonymous, and hitherto
the difference of meaning has not been noticed; but there is a slight
difference, as a comparison of places will show. The exact sense to
be attached to them is a matter of dispute, and ‘a windy notion,’
‘striving after the wind,’ have been proposed, but the rendering of
the LXX., προαίρεσις, ‘distraction,’ represents the meaning best. With
regard to רעות we may notice that it is formed quite regularly from רעה,
which is ‘evil,’ in the sense of something that ‘hurts’ or ‘offends,’
and is in the nature of a collective plural; so do we account at once
for the peculiar pointing and for the rendering of the LXX. On the
other hand, רעיון has, as nouns with this termination usually have,
a more subjective meaning; the distinction between the two is that
between ‘vexations of’ and ‘vexing of’ spirit; thus in verse 17,
where the trouble came from his own spirit, caused by his inability to
explain the difficulty which confronted him in his argument, Koheleth
uses the subjective form).
15 _That which is_ crooked │ (3.) a perplexity which it is
cannot be made straight: and │ impossible to set right, (4.)
that which is ¹wanting cannot │ a defect which it is equally
be numbered. │ impossible to account for.
│
¹ _Hebrew_ defect. │
(15.) =A crookedness= (occurs chapters vii. 13, xii. 3, and Amos
viii. 5, whence it appears that the precise meaning is moral obliquity)
=not enabled to be set in order= (occurs chapter i. 15, vii. 18, xii. 9,
only), =a defect= (occurs here only, but see Deuteronomy xxviii. 48, 57,
where the root is used of famine, and 1 Kings xvii. 16, to denote the
failure of the oil) =not enabled= (repeated, hence we must render ‘it
is _equally_ impossible’) =to be numbered= (infinitive plural niphal).
The meaning of this verse has been very much disputed, but if it be
considered as the sequel to what went immediately before, the sense
will be quite plain. We may discern in it a fourfold description of
human life, in respect of its cares and anxieties and uncertainties,
the first point being (i.) that this care is for something evanescent;
(ii.) that it is vexatious; (iii.) and then this anxiety is useless,
because life is so perverted as to be beyond the possibility of being
set in order by any care of ours; (iv.) and so defective that no
account can be given which would set it right: ‘which of you by taking
thought can add one cubit to his stature?’
16 I communed with mine own │ I reasoned over the matter
heart, saying, Lo, I am come │ with my own heart to this
to great estate, and have │ effect. I who have, it appears,
gotten more wisdom than all │ become greater and more
_they_ that have been before │ advanced in wisdom than any who
me in Jerusalem: yea, my │ were before me in Jerusalem,
heart ¹had great experience │ and experienced over the widest
of wisdom and knowledge. │ extent of wisdom and knowledge,
│
¹ _Hebrew_ had seen much. │
(16.) =Reasoned I myself together with my heart to say= (as reasoned
stands first, this is the subject of the whole, and the words ‘to say,’
לאמר, are the usual formula of introduction of the thing said; they are
equivalent to our ‘to this effect.’ This then is Koheleth’s reasoning,
the result of which is to be given), =I behold= (stating it as an
admitted and patent fact) =I have been made great, and I have been
added= to in =wisdom above all which were before me in Jerusalem, and
my heart has seen the much= (with the article expressed; equivalent
therefore to very much, or as much as possible of) =wisdom and
knowledge.=
17 And I gave my heart │ and have set my heart earnestly
to know wisdom, and to know │ to know wisdom, and to know
madness and folly: I perceived │ false successes from real acts
that this also is vexation of │ of prudence, know but this: it
spirit. │ is simply vexing one’s spirit;
(17.) =And I have given my heart in order to know wisdom= (that is,
he made wisdom his special study and object) =and the knowledge of=
(‘know’ being repeated rises into special prominence, and hence the
meaning is to know wisdom, or to be wise enough to recognise) =false
expectations and prudences=. (This passage is one of great difficulty,
but the exact sense will become apparent on investigating the meaning
of the two words הוללות and שכלות; now הוללות occurs chapter i. 17, ii. 12,
vii. 25, ix. 3, and pointed with Shurek at x. 13, and is peculiar to
Ecclesiastes. It is a technical word, and is correctly translated
‘folly,’ but it is that kind of folly which displays itself in false
joy. The future poel from which this noun is derived occurs Job xii. 17,
chapter vii. 7, Isaiah xliv. 25; and the participle at chapter ii. 2,
Psalm cii. 89. Thus we see the connexion between this sense and the
more ordinary one of ‘praise;’ it is the ‘bepraised’ used in a bad
sense. The word שכלות occurs here only, but it is rendered by the LXX.
ἐπιστήμη, and by the Syriac (‡ Syriac), compare also Genesis xli. 33,
with the meaning ‘prudence,’ and with this agrees the later Hebrew. Now
these meanings make consistent sense. Koheleth wished to know wisdom
and the knowledge of folly and prudence; in other words, to have a
wisdom which could tell the one from the other. Thus the LXX. render
הל״ by παραβολὰς, which A² has altered into περιφορὰν; this apparently
very strange rendering is thus intelligible enough, especially to those
who had the Hebrew before them. To alter the text to סכלות, as some
have proposed, is not even to cut the Gordian knot, for with the true
meaning of this word, ‘clever-folly,’ ‘false-wisdom,’ no better sense
will be made, although it is quite possible that שכ״ may have been
chosen for the equivoke it gives, not even differing in sound, if the
pointing can be trusted, from סכ״. The truth is that so much of our
elaborate wisdom and best plans are but elaborate mistakes, that to
attempt to judge the one from the other is a hopeless task. Hence then
the following) =I know= (this is the fourth time this word occurs in
the clause, thus it is brought out with the very strongest prominence,
and gives the meaning ‘what I do know is’) =that even this= (שגם,
compare places chapter ii. 15, viii. 14, has a peculiar meaning,
expressive of surprise that this should be so) really =is vexing of
spirit= (רעיון, not רעות, as above; because in this case the vexation is
subjective,――the idea conveyed by the whole passage being ‘what I do
know as the result of my wisdom and knowledge being just even this,
that it is only a vexing of the spirit’). It may be observed that רעיון
occurs in the Chaldee of Daniel――see Daniel ii. 29, 30; iv. 19 (16);
v. 6, etc., always in the sense of a ‘_painful_ reflection,’ but in
later Chaldee and Syriac as ‘a reflection’ of any kind. As the sense
in which Koheleth uses the word is the nearest to the root-meaning, is
it not an evidence, so far, of earlier composition of his book?
18 For in much wisdom │ because, in increasing wisdom,
_is_ much grief: and he │ there is an increase also of
that increaseth knowledge │ disappointment, and what adds
increaseth sorrow. │ to one’s knowledge adds to
│ one’s sorrow.
(18.) =For= (introducing a reason for this conclusion as follows) =in
much wisdom is much grief= (grief in the sense of ‘vexation,’ caused by
disappointment――see chapter ii. 23, vii. 3, 9, xi. 10, 1 Samuel i. 6.
The LXX. translate by γνῶσις, ‘knowledge’! Is it possible that they
intended to refer to Genesis ii. ♦17, using γνῶσις in a bad sense?)
=and= he that =increases knowledge increases sorrow= (chapter ii. 23;
Exodus iii. 7, of the Israelitish sorrows at the hands of their
task-masters). ‘In a world like this much science is much sorrow,
for it is the knowledge of penury, the statistics of starvation, the
assurance that our case is desperate.’――[Hamilton.]
♦ “xvii.” replaced with “17”
Even the wisdom of Solomon having failed to find any solution of the
problem of human anxiety, he next tries mirth, but with no better
success. This experiment takes only two verses to record, for it was
but soon over.